In 1994, during the Clinton administration, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act. That landmark legislation authorized funds for rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters, the establishment of a national hot line for victims, and measures such as education programs for judges, law enforcement officers and prosecutors.

The law remains critical in battling domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, of which women remain the overwhelming targets. In the past, Congress readily supported reauthorization of the act, and even expanded its scope to address the needs of disabled women, older women and teens.

But this year's reauthorization has been stalled over the U.S. Senate's effort to better protect Native Americans, undocumented immigrants and LGBT abuse victims. The Senate bill was passed with bipartisan support in April, but the House version, adopted in May, eliminated the additional protections at the insistence of the GOP's right wing.

It's simply indefensible to exclude victims because of their immigration status, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity. Under no circumstances should America become a place that tolerates women being raped or beaten unless they're heterosexual U.S. citizens, not of Native American heritage.

Undocumented women risk deportation if they report abuse, which their abusers exploit. Nonheterosexual women are often turned away from domestic violence shelters and denied orders of protection. And Native American women face higher rates of sexual assault, mostly at the hands of non-Indians.

Tribal courts have no authority to prosecute non-Indians. As a result, victims have few resources for protection, and abusers often are never held accountable. The Senate's bill grants limited jurisdiction -- a constitutional sticking point for many Republicans, such as Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, who noted that "the Bill of Rights does not apply in tribal courts." But a smart, new proposal offered by two Republicans, including Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, would give defendants the option to move the case to federal courts.

"There are 535 members of Congress, and 534 of them could go on the Sioux Reservation, commit a crime and not be subjected to local jurisdiction," Cole told Indian Country Today Media Network. "Most American communities have local jurisdiction; Native Americans do not. It's not right."

Nationally, an average of three women are murdered every day by a current or former partner. An estimated 2.3 people are raped or physically assaulted by someone they know. Besides the human toll, the health care, employment, legal and other costs are staggering.

The Violence Against Women Act has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Vice President Joe Biden, then a U.S. senator from Delaware, introduced the original bill, which garnered 225 cosponsors, including vocal support from Sen. Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democrat.

You'd think the GOP opposition would eagerly rally behind female crime victims, given the backlash faced from remarks that cost two Senate candidates their elections. In defending staunch opposition to abortion, Missouri Rep. Todd Akin spoke of "legitimate rape" and Indiana's Richard Mourdock insisted that pregnancies that result from rape were intended by God.

Lawmakers have had the common sense to put aside differences to back this act for the past 18 years. It's critical that they do so again before year's end so that the legislative process won't have to start all over again. Women's lives and safety are on the line.

That was our policy prior to VAWA. VAWA provides unique services that weren't being provided on local or state levels, because the local and state governments weren't doing it.

And violent crime rates against women were dropping a larger rate without them, than they have with them. Each case and locality faces it's own set of unique circumstances, and I trust the local law enforcement to tackle their problems as they see fit. And as we've already proven, they were doing it quite effectively without the federal government's oversight.

There are a whole lot of reasons why crime can and should stay low, even with the decline of baby boomers in the population. But that's another thread.

You've already made this argument. I've already rebutted it.

You haven't rebutted anything. You haven't explained why the rate of decline of violence against women was not increased by VAWA. We have a trend that shows that Violence against women would have decreased to current levels without VAWA.

Violent crime against women was following the trend that all violent crime was following. Why do you think that it would've stopped following that trend? You have to believe that the trend in violent crime rates against women would've been an anomaly, compared to all other violent crime rates, in order to believe that the VAWA was effective. Otherwise violence against women decreased for the same reason all other violent crime rates decreased.

If violent crime rates against women would have decreased more dramatically than all other violent crime, you might have an argument, but it didn't.

And violent crime rates against women were dropping a larger rate without them, than they have with them. Each case and locality faces it's own set of unique circumstances, and I trust the local law enforcement to tackle their problems as they see fit. And as we've already proven, they were doing it quite effectively without the federal government's oversight.

You haven't rebutted anything. You haven't explained why the rate of decline of violence against women was not increased by VAWA. We have a trend that shows that Violence against women would have decreased to current levels without VAWA.

VAWA's expanded legal services such as those provided in VAWA has been found to contribute to declines in domestic violence. Law enforcement has greater ability to arrest perpetrators, and has been given critical prosecution training. Outcomes have been positive for everybody involved thanks directly to VAWA contributions, from law enforcement to victims to prosecutors. And yes, VAWA has been documented as a contributor to declines of domestic violence.

VAWA's expanded legal services such as those provided in VAWA has been found to contribute to declines in domestic violence. Law enforcement has greater ability to arrest perpetrators, and has been given critical prosecution training. Outcomes have been positive for everybody involved thanks directly to VAWA contributions, from law enforcement to victims to prosecutors. And yes, VAWA has been documented as a contributor to declines of domestic violence.

Why did all violent crime rates follow a similar pattern? Why would the crimes affected by VAWA not have followed that pattern? This is what you are arguing, because it is the only way you argue that VAWA was effective.

Why did all violent crime rates follow a similar pattern? Why would the crimes affected by VAWA not have followed that pattern? This is what you are arguing, because it is the only way you argue that VAWA was effective.

If that's not the argument you are making, then you have to concede that violent crimes against women would've fallen to their current levels without VAWA, therefore conceding the ineffectiveness of VAWA.

You can post all of the reports you want, but quantitative data shows that VAWA hasn't done anything to reduce violent crime rates against women.

If that's not the argument you are making, then you have to concede that violent crimes against women would've fallen to their current levels without VAWA, therefore conceding the ineffectiveness of VAWA.

I'll concede neither -- first of all every study on the subject has determined that VAWA has helped reduce violent crimes against women, and second of all even if it hasn't, that's not all VAWA was designed to deal with.

In other words, violence against women was already illegal and Republican opposition to this spending bill aimed at funneling money to democrat constituents is completely different than any softness on violence against women.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

If you're just going to ignore evidence I've posted, then what are we even doing here.

I'm not ignoring it. None of it justifies this spending in terms of cost effectiveness. None of what you posted even considered the opportunity costs of this legislation.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

In other words, violence against women was already illegal and Republican opposition to this spending bill aimed at funneling money to democrat constituents is completely different than any softness on violence against women.

I'm not ignoring it. None of it justifies this spending in terms of cost effectiveness. None of what you posted even considered the opportunity costs of this legislation.

You're just repeating your conclusions. I could honestly reply to this but I'd just be reposting shit from earlier in the thread, which you dismissed but hardly rebutted.